Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Wigand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Wigand

228 A.D.2d 187, 643 N.Y.2d 92, 643 N.Y.S.2d 92, 24 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2055, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6383

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 6, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 187 (Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Wigand) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Wigand, 228 A.D.2d 187, 643 N.Y.2d 92, 643 N.Y.S.2d 92, 24 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2055, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation ("B&W”) has failed to overcome the qualified protection enjoyed by deponents-respondents concerning their newsgathering activities. The outtakes and unpublished materials sought by B&W, at least those dealing with the preparation and eventual broadcast of the CBS "60 Minutes” interview, relate directly to the allegation in the underlying Kentucky action that "[s]ince his termination from B&W, defendant Wigand has provided both in writing and orally, documents, materials and information acquired by him during and as a result of his employment with B&W to CBS television’s '60 Minutes’ program”, and thus, they are "highly material and relevant” (Civil Rights Law § 79-h [c] [i]). Nevertheless, B&W has not established that the items sought are "critical or necessary” to the maintenance of the underlying action Civil Rights Law § 79-h [c] [ii]). As the motion court noted, B&W already has "ample proof’ of the breach of confidentiality agreements in the publicly available tapes of the interview actually broadcast.

B&W contends that it needs further documents from CBS to establish the full measure of damages that Wigand has caused B&W. However, such a vague assertion cannot establish the "critical or necessary” nature of any of the documents.

Accordingly, we need not reach the issue of whether B&W has met the third prong of the test under section 79-h (c) (iii), namely that the unpublished information "is not obtainable from any alternative source” simply because that source is Wigand himself, B&W’s adversary in the Kentucky litigation, and is, in the assessment of B&W, "totally lacking in credibility”.

We have considered B&W’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Plaintiff Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation ("B&W”) has failed to overcome the qualified protection enjoyed by deponents-respondents concerning their newsgathering activities. The outtakes and unpublished materials sought by B&W, at least those dealing with the preparation and eventual broadcast of the CBS "60 Minutes” interview, relate directly to the allegation in the underlying Kentucky action that "[s]ince his termination from B&W, defendant Wigand has provided both in writing and orally, documents, materials and information acquired by him during and as a result of his employment with B&W to CBS television’s '60 Minutes’ program”, and thus, they are "highly material and relevant” (Civil Rights Law § 79-h [c] [i]). Nevertheless, B&W has not established that the items sought are "critical or necessary” to the maintenance of the underlying action Civil Rights Law § 79-h [c] [ii]). As the motion court noted, B&W already has "ample proof’ of the breach of confidentiality agreements in the publicly available tapes of the interview actually broadcast.

B&W contends that it needs further documents from CBS to establish the full measure of damages that Wigand has caused B&W. However, such a vague assertion cannot establish the "critical or necessary” nature of any of the documents.

Accordingly, we need not reach the issue of whether B&W has met the third prong of the test under section 79-h (c) (iii), namely that the unpublished information "is not obtainable from any alternative source” simply because that source is Wigand himself, B&W’s adversary in the Kentucky litigation, and is, in the assessment of B&W, "totally lacking in credibility”.

We have considered B&W’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 187, 643 N.Y.2d 92, 643 N.Y.S.2d 92, 24 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2055, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-williamson-tobacco-corp-v-wigand-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack